A program is marked by its size and complexity. It may conveniently be understood as a group of related projects which are managed in a coordinated way to achieve a long-term build and operate objective.
To illustrate this important aspect, it is useful to consider what is commonly known as “the Space Program”. One such current program is that to build and operate the International Space Station in Earth orbit. The program is of enormous complexity, and includes, for example, building and delivering component modules of the space station, delivering the modules to the site in space, assembling the modules, and training astronauts in the operation and maintenance of the finally assembled space station. The build and operate program aspects are distributed over many geographical sites in different countries of the world, and in space.
Another example of a program, from the commercial arena, is the creation of a global e-business providing an entirely new service, or a large corporation moving to a new business model to deliver its existing products and services to the global market using the internet and e-commerce.
A further example of a program is providing technology for a large-scale sporting event, such as the Olympic Games. The program involves building and operating the Olympic Games technology across multiple venues, each staging multiple events over multiple days. Component projects can, for example, relate to building and operating information technology infrastructure, computer application systems, and telecommunications systems, the training and deploying of staff, and defining the processes for the collection and dissemination of results information to the media for the duration of the sporting events.
A characteristic shared by many technology programs is the need to “fast track” the build and operate phases in order to collapse time. Fast-tracking involves the overlapping of design and development activities, and the deployment and operation of some program components while others are still in the build phase. Fast-tracking increases the complexity of a program and increases the risk of cost and schedule overruns.
A build and operate technology program incorporates a number of management disciplines, each with their own specialist methodologies or process frameworks. Three of the key disciplines are project management, technology management and process management, for each of which a number of mature and widely accepted methodologies are known. However, individually, these methodologies either do not adequately address the complexity encountered in large-scale technology programs, or they do not deal with both the build and operate phases. Mature and accepted methodologies for large technology programs do not exist, and the integration of discipline-based methodologies is difficult because of conflicts in the application of core management principles or terminology.
An example of project management methodology is the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) published by the Project Management Institute of Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, Pa. 19073-3299, a worldwide certification body that certifies practitioners in project management competency.
Another example of prior art in technology management are the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Methodologies, produced by international IT consultancies, such as Information Engineering, Method1, Navigator and WSDDM, that focus on the build phase of Information Technology projects.
An example of a process methodology is the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) from the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg, USA. SEI act as a worldwide certification body in the software engineering competency. The focus of CMM is the build phase of software engineering projects.
Large build and operate technology programs that are undertaken without an adequate methodology or process framework are susceptible to failure for a number of reasons, the more common of which are:                Cost and schedule overruns because of an inability to define the scope of work and contractual obligations of each sub-contractor or project team in a way which supports a fast-track approach and changing organization structures during the transition from build to operate phases.        Cost and schedule overruns because of inadequate Cost/Schedule Control Systems (CS2) and related processes such as deliverables management and change management.        Conflicts between the discipline-based methodologies of sub-contractors, when the program management methodology does not provide adequate integrating mechanisms.        An inability to perform total risk management (risk assessment, apportionment to sub-contractors, risk mitigation and contingency management).        Missing deployment schedule dates because of difficulties coordinating the delivery and integration of components from sub-contractors.        Missing deployment schedule dates because operational process development, staffing and logistics support schedules are not integrated with technology build activities.        Disputes relating to the quality of deliverables by sub-contractors, particularly in relation to services, because of inadequate methods for defining, negotiating and reporting on service levels.        Difficulty in managing the huge number of tasks/activities.        Failure to recognise the changes in skill required from building to operating.        
It is the object of the present invention to avoid or at least reduce the disadvantages in prior art and to provide a framework suited to build and operate programs.